Government must stop subsidizing unhealthy foods
We are extremely fortunate to have an abundance of affordable food options in our grocery stores. Theoretically, this is, in part, thanks to a government program that protects farmers from weather and natural disasters and also ensures that food prices remain affordable and stable. The federal crop insurance program has provided this safety net for nearly 100 years. However, like so many big government programs, the FCIP has far exceeded its mandate and is partially responsible for subsidizing the public’s unhealthy diets.
Just six commodities — corn, soy, wheat, cotton, peanuts, and rice — account for 94% of FCIP support. Many of these commodities are not used to provide affordable nutrition but are instead heavily processed into the fillers and sugars that are likely a large part of people’s health problems, including obesity.
Tackling obesity is a tricky and sensitive subject. There are any number of reasons unrelated to food that can cause a person to gain weight. But it is also arguably the single biggest health problem in the United States. More than 40% of adults and 20% of children are obese, leading to a multitude of the most common and preventable health conditions, including heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and certain cancers. The medical costs associated with these problems are nearly $150 billion annually.
There is no denying our access to cheap, nutrient-deficient foods is one of the causes of this health crisis. By some estimates, Americans get 60% to 90% of their calories from highly processed foods and drinks. Spend any time reading food product labels, and it becomes abundantly clear that much of what we are offered in grocery stores and restaurants is dietary garbage. Nearly any packaged product contains one or more corn products, be it corn syrup added for sweetness or corn oils or starches for texture — often under unscrupulous names. Even if there is no corn in the product, it’s still likely the food label will have some form of heavily processed wheat or soy. If none of those are in the packaged good, more likely than not, you are paying top dollar for a higher cost, more nutritious product.
It is no coincidence that the nutrient-deficient fillers in our packaged products are those most heavily subsidized by the FCIP. More than half of all U.S. cash crop receipts go to just two crops: corn and soybeans. Multiple studies point directly to farm subsidies and their effects on obesity, which has risen sharply in the past 50 years. Meanwhile, corn is subsidized by the taxpayer to the tune of about $2 billion annually.
Of course, these products are used in a variety of things unrelated to consumption at the dinner table, including cosmetics products, fuels, and animal feeds, all of which are highly debatable as good uses of these crops. But it’s clear that the initial intention of the FCIP, to ensure food prices are relatively stable and growers have a safety net, is no longer the foundation of crop policy in the U.S. Now, subsidies go to the best lobbyists and most powerful agribusinesses. A recent report from the Government Accountability Office shows in detail how much of the program is wasteful. Further, this unfortunately comes in diametric opposition to the public’s ever-dwindling good health. Zero fruits and vegetables are included in our most expensive commodity risk coverage programs. In fact, fruits and vegetables are in a category of their own, considered to be “specialty crops.” Unsurprisingly, these items are woefully underrepresented in the standard American diet.
The federal government would be wise to consider how backward farm subsidy policy contributes to our severe weight problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and various presidential administrations appear interested in curtailing obesity, but blanket recommendations to move more and eat less are clearly not doing the trick.
We should move away from incentivizing unhealthy diets by subsidizing cheap fillers and refocus subsidy policy through the lens of nutrition. To the extent subsidies are necessary for the stability of the agricultural market and families’ abilities to put food on the table, policy should be geared toward incentivizing healthy diets rich in whole foods, which are nourishing and satiating.